PUNSALAN VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA [95 PHIL 46; NO.

L-4817; 26 MAY 1954] Facts: Petitioners, who are professionals in the city, assail Ordinance No. 3398 together with the law authorizing it (Section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila). The ordinance imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes nonpayment of the same. The law authorizing said ordinance empowers the Municipal Board of the city to impose a municipal occupation tax on persons engaged in various professions. Petitioners, having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code, paid the tax under protest as imposed by Ordinance No. 3398. The lower court declared the ordinance invalid and affirmed the validity of the law authorizing it.

Issue: Whether or Not the ordinance and law authorizing it constitute class legislation, and authorize what amounts to double taxation.

Held: The Legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupations shall be taxed, and in its discretion may tax all, or select classes of occupation for taxation, and leave others untaxed. It is not for the courts to judge which cities or municipalities should be empowered to impose occupation taxes aside from that imposed by the National Government. That matter is within the domain of political departments. The argument against double taxation may not be invoked if one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city. It is widely recognized that there is nothing inherently terrible in the requirement that taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof. Judgment of the lower court is reversed with regards to the ordinance d affirmed as to the law authorizing it. Manila Electric Company v. A.L. Yatco 69 Phil. 89 G.R. No. 45697 November 1, 1939 Moran, J.: Doctrine: Where the insured against is within the Philippines, the risk insured against also within the Philippines, and certain incidents of the contract are to be attended to in the Philippines, such as, payment of dividends when received in cash, sending of an unjuster into the Philippines in case of dispute, or making of proof of loss, the Commonwealth of the Philippines has the power to impose the tax upon the insured, regardless of whether the contract is executed in a foreign country and with a foreign corporation. Under such circumstances, substantial elements of the contract may be said to be so situated in the Philippines as to give its government the power to tax.

Facts: In 1935, plaintiff Manila Electric Company insured with the City of New York Insurance Company and the United States Guaranty Company, foreign corporations not licensed to do business in the Philippines and having no agents therein, certain real and personal properties situated

even if it be assumed that the tax imposed upon the insured will ultimately be passed on the insurer.in the Philippines. and it is but reasonable that the latter should pay a just contribution therefor. has subjected itself to the taxing jurisdiction of the Philippines. under the authority of section 192 of act No. thus constituting an indirect tax upon the foreign corporation. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff paid
. sending of an unjuster into the Philippines in case of dispute. And.10 per case of 24 bottles of Pepsi-Cola. The insurance was entered into in behalf of said plaintiff by its broker in New York City. of P0. or making of proof of loss. The protest having been overruled. assessed and levied a tax of one per centum on said premiums. regardless of whether the contract is executed in a foreign country and with a foreign corporation. Commonwealth of the Philippines. Plaintiff's warehouse in the City of Butuan serves as storage for its products the "Pepsi-Cola" soft drinks for sale to customers in the City of Butuan and all the municipalities in the Province of Agusan. 1960. 110 which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. which plaintiff paid under protest. On August 16. and certain incidents of the contract are to be attended to in the Philippines. such as. Ordinance No. imposes a tax on any person. is a domestic corporation with offices and principal place of business in Quezon City. plaintiff took the instant appeal. association. plaintiff instituted the present action to recover the tax. 2427. The Collector of Internal Revenue. it would still be valid. vs. L-22814]
Facts: Plaintiff. Held: We are of the opinion and so hold that where the insured against also within the Philippines. substantial elements of the contract may be said to be so situated in the Philippines as to give its government the power to tax. with costs against appellant.. by the stipulations of its contract. in New York. and from the judgment thus rendered.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. Judgment affirmed.. as amended. the risk insured against also within the Philippines. City of Butuan [August 28. because the foreign corporation. the City of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. benefits the foreign corporation. 122 and effective November 28. payment of dividends when received in cash. the Commonwealth of the Philippines has the power to impose the tax upon the insured.696. Plaintiff through its broker paid. Issue: Whether or not the disputed tax is one imposed by the Commonwealth of the Philippines upon a contract beyond its jurisdiction. It would certainly be a discrimination against domestic corporations to hold the tax valid when the policy is given by them and invalid when issued by foreign corporations. etc. 110 as amended. to said insurance company premiums in the sum of P91. These "Pepsi-Cola" soft drinks are bottled in Cebu City and shipped to the Butuan City warehouse of plaintiff for distribution and sale in the City of Butuan and all municipalities of Agusan. 1968. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines. Under such circumstances. by protecting the properties insured. 1960. After all.

177. must.under protest the amount of P4. or negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation. 1968
. as amended. but.63 from August 16 to December 31. and hence. (3) the classification applies. Indeed. The plaintiff filed a complaint for the recovery of the total amount of P14. however. not only to present conditions. Issue: Whether or not the disputed ordinance is void because it is highly unjust and discriminatory Held: Yes. 110 as amended of the City of Butuan is illegal. August 28. it would still be invalid. since only sales by "agents or consignees" of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. City of Butuan
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. there is no reason why sales thereof by dealers other than agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan should be exempt from the tax. violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law. would be exempt from the disputed tax. as discriminatory. 1961. (2) these are germane to the purpose of the legislation or ordinance. 1960 and the amount of P9. decision appealed from is reversed.40 from January 1 to July 30. L-22814.. if its purpose was merely to levy a burden upon the sale of soft drinks or carbonated beverages. and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan. not acting for or on behalf of other merchants. that the tax imposed is excessive and that it is unconstitutional. and (4) the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class. regardless of the volume of their sales. Hence. OF THE PHILS. City of Butuan is sentenced to refund plaintiff and is restrained and prohibited permanently from enforcing said Ordinance. Even if the burden in question were regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages. Sales by local dealers. be reasonable and this requirement is not deemed satisfied unless: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences. Pepsi-Cola vs. INC. vs. It is true that the uniformity essential to the valid exercise of the power of taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances. also.250. The classification made in the exercise of this authority.03 paid under protest.926. These conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question. on the ground that Ordinance No. to be valid. to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the defendant. CITY OF BUTUAN 24 SCRA 789 GR No.

Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and the plaintiff. The tax levied is discriminatory." FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant Pepsi-Cola sought to recover the sums paid by it under protest. 3473. ISSUE: Does the tax ordinance violate the uniformity requirement of taxation? HELD: Yes. (3) the classification applies. Issue: Whether or Not Sec. highly unjust and discriminatory. shipped to the agents and/or consignees by outside dealers or any person or company having its actual business outside the City. He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the sum of Php. so the plaintiff appealed. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. (2) these are germane to the purpose of the legislation or ordinance. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff certain mines. also. it would still be invalid. since only sales by "agents or consignees" of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. must. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904 is void
. and hence. HORD [8 Phil 125. The plaintiff paid under protest. regardless of the volume of sales. and constitutes an invlaid delegation of the power to tax. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. would be exempt from the disputed tax. to be valid. or negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation. however. and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the City of Butuan. and (4) the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class. Sec."The classification made in the exercise of power to tax. 9. Even if the burden in question were regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages. must be reasonable . 134 of the Internal Revenue Law infringing sec. violative of the uniformity required by the Constitution and the law therefor. 164 is void or valid. to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present. 600 paid by him as taxes. amounts to double taxation. but. pursuant to its Municipal Ordinance No. Sales by local dealers. 5 of the Act of Congress which provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted”. The obligation of which contract was impaired by the enactment of sec. excessive. The classification made in the exercise of this authority. to be valid. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. contending that they were valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec.134 of Act No. to the City of Butuan.
It is true that the uniformity essential to the valid exercise of the power of taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances. and collected by the latter. not only to present conditions. No. The ordinance imposes taxes for every case of softdrinks. as discriminatory. be reasonable and this requirement is not deemed satisfied unless: (1) it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences. The Collector of Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties. 110 which plaintiff assails as null and void because it partakes of the nature of an import tax. liquors and other carbonated beverages. 22 Mar 1907] Facts: The Spanish Govt. not acting for or on behalf of other merchants. regardless of the volume of their sales. oppressive and confiscatory. CASSANOVAS VS.

because it impairs the obligation of contracts contained in the concessions of mine made by the Spanish Government. Judgment reversed.
.